Can someone please show me where, in the Holy Qur'an, Muhammad clearly condemns the orriginal Christian belief in the Holy Trinity as given in the Holy Bible from the mouth of Jesus himself?

Matthew 28:19" Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,"

Notice in the quoted passage the word, "name," a singular word referring to Allah, yet followed by three names: 1) "Father," 2) "Son," and 3) "Holy Spirit." Since the beginning of the Christian faith, the Apostles and those whom they instructed have understood this to mean one God...in three persons. This has never been understood by Catholics or Orthodox Christians to referr to three seperate gods, but rather one and only one God.

What verses can be quoted from the Holy Qur'an to refer directly and clearly (without having to be interpreted) to this understanding of Allah?

Can someone please show me where, in the Holy Qur'an, Muhammad clearly condemns the orriginal Christian belief in the Holy Trinity as given in the Holy Bible from the mouth of Jesus himself?

Quran says in Surah 4:171

O People of the Book!
Commit no excesses
in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus
the son of Mary
was (no more than) a messenger from Allah, and His Word, which He
bestowed on Mary,
and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His
Messengers. Say not
"Three": desist: It will be better for you: For Allah is One God: Glory
be to Him: (Far Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all
things in the
heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.

No Mary, no Jesus, no Holy Spirit, no Hindu
trinity
(Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva), and no lies! All forms of
trinity or any
plurality of GOD Almighty are false and lies!

Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Matthew 28:19" Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,"

Notice in the quoted passage the word, "name," a singular word referring to Allah, yet followed by three names: 1) "Father," 2) "Son," and 3) "Holy Spirit." Since the beginning of the Christian faith, the Apostles and those whom they instructed have understood this to mean one God...in three persons. This has never been understood by Catholics or Orthodox Christians to referr to three seperate gods, but rather one and only one God.

What verses can be quoted from the Holy Qur'an to refer directly and clearly (without having to be interpreted) to this understanding of Allah?

Thanks for sharing from your wonderful faith,

Jack Catholic

Matthew 28:19"... baptizing them in the name of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..." This passage is a forgery.

“All but the most
conservative of
scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command (Matt.
28:19) was inserted later” (Tom Harper, For
Christ’s Sake, p. 84)

"The historical
riddle is not solved by Matthew 28:19, since, according to a wide
scholarly consensus, it
is not an authentic saying of Jesus, not even an elaboration of a
Jesus-saying on
baptism" (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 1, 1992, page 585).

"It has been
customary to trace the institution of the practice (of baptism) to the
words of Christ
recorded in Matthew 28:19. But the authenticity of this passage has been
challenged on
historical as well as on textual grounds. It must be acknowledged that
the formula of the
threefold name, which is here enjoined, does not appear to have been
employed by the
primitive Church, which, so far as our information goes, baptized
'in' or 'into the
name of Jesus' (or 'Jesus Christ' or Lord Jesus': Acts 2:38, 8:16,
10:48, 19:5, 1 Cor. 1:13, 15) (The
Dictionary of the Bible, 1947, page 83).

Matthew 28:19,
"the Church of the first days did not observe this world-wide command,
even if they
knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late
doctrinal expansion.
In place of the words "baptizing... Spirit" we should probably read
simply
"into my name," i.e. (turn the nations) to Christianity, "in my name,"
i.e. (teach the nations) in my spirit" (Peake's
Commentary on the Bible, 1929, page 723).

"It cannot be
directly proved that Jesus instituted baptism, for Matthew 28:19 is
not a saying of the
Lord. The reason for this assertion are:
(1) It is only a
later stage of the tradition that represents the risen Christ as
delivering speeches and
giving commandments. Paul knows nothing of it. (2) The Trinitarian
formula is foreign
to the mouth of Jesus and has not the authority of the Apostolic
age which it must have had if it had descended from Jesus himself.
On the other hand,
Paul knows of no other way of receiving the Gentiles into the Christian
communities than
by baptism, and it is highly probable that in the time of Paul all
Jewish Christians were
also baptized. We may perhaps assume that the practice of baptism was
continued in
consequence of Jesus' recognition of John the Baptist and his baptism,
even after John
himself had been removed. According to John 4:2, Jesus himself baptized
not, but his
disciples under his superintendence. It is possible only with the help
of tradition to
trace back to Jesus a "Sacrament of Baptism," or an obligation to it ex
necessitate salutis, through it is credible
that tradition is
correct here. Baptism in the Apostolic age was in the name of the Lord
Jesus (1 Cor. 1:13; Acts 19:5). We cannot
make out when the formula in the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit emerged"
(History of
Dogma, Vol. 1, Adolph Harnack, 1958, page
79).

"The very
account which tells us that at the last, after his resurrection, he
commissioned his
apostles to go and baptize among all nations (Mt 28:19) betrayed itself
by speaking in the
Trinitarian language of the next century, and compels us to see in it
the ecclesiastical
editor, and not the evangelist, much less the founder himself. No
historical trace
appears of this baptismal formula earlier that the "Teaching of the
Twelve
Apostles" (ch. 7:1,3
The
Oldest Church Manuel, ed. Philip Schaff,
1887), and the first
Apology of Justin (Apol. i. 61.)
about the middle of the second century: and more than a century later,
Cyprian found it
necessary to insist upon the use of it instead of the older phrase
baptized "into
Christ Jesus," or into the "name of the Lord Jesus." (Gal. 3:27; Acts
19:5;
10:48. Cyprian Ep. 73, 16-18, has to convert
those who still
use the shorter form.) Paul alone, of the apostles, was baptized, ere he
was "filled
with the Holy Ghost;" and he certainly was baptized simply "into Christ
Jesus." (Rom. 6:3) Yet the tri-personal form, unhistorical as it is, is
actually
insisted on as essential by almost every Church in Christendom, and, if
you have not had
it pronounced over you, the ecclesiastical authorities cast you out as a
heathen man, and
will accord to you neither Christian recognition
in your life,
nor Christian burial in your death. It is a rule which would condemn as
invalid every
recorded baptism performed by an apostle; for if the book of Acts may be
trusted, the
invariable usage was baptism "in the name of Christ Jesus," (Acts 2:38)
and not
"in the name of the father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." And
doubtless the author (Luke) is as good a witness for the usage of his
own time (about 115
A.D.) as for that of the period whereof he treats" (The Seat of
Authority in
Religion, James Martineau, 1905, page 568).

"It is clear,
therefore, that of the MSS which Eusebius inherited from his
predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesarea in Palestine, some at
least preserved the
original reading, in which there was no mention either of Baptism or
of Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost. It had been conjectured by Dr. Davidson, Dr. Martineau,
by the present Dean of Westminister, and by
Prof. Harnack (to mention but a few names
out of many), that here the
received text, could not contain the very words of Jesus? This long
before any one except
Dr. Burgon, who kept the discovery to
himself, had noticed the
Eusebian form of the reading." "It is
satisfactory
to notice that Dr. Eberhard Nestle, in his
new edition of the
New Testament in Latin and Greek, furnishes the Eusebian
reading in his critical apparatus, and that Dr. Sanday
seems to lean to its acceptance" (History of New Testament Criticism, Conybeare, 1910, pages, 98-102, 111-112).

"Feine
(PER3, XIX, 396 f) and Kattenbusch
(Sch-Herz, I, 435 f. argue that the
Trinitarian formula in
Matthew 28:19 is spurious. No record of the use of the Trinitarian
formula can be
discovered in the Acts or the epistles of the apostles" (The
International
Standard Bible Encyclopedia, James Orr, 1946, page 398).

Footnote to Matthew
28:19, It may be that this formula, so far
as the fullness
of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the liturgical usage
established later
in the primitive community. It will be remembered that the Acts
speak of baptizing
"in the name of Jesus", Acts 1:5 +. But whatever the
variation on formula the underlying reality remains the same" (The
Jerusalem Bible,
1966, Page 64).

Critical scholarship, on the whole,
rejects the traditional
attribution of the tripartite baptismal formula to Jesus and regards
it as of later
origin. Undoubtedly then the baptismal formula originally consisted of one part and itgradually
developed into its tripartite form (The
Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Vol. 1, Harry AustrynWolfson, 1964, pg 143). (online Source)

There is no indication that “Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit”
is one essence, Matthew is not speaking of trinity.

I find great discrepancies between the 27 and 28 chapters of Matthew. For example in 28:8So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him".

People would worship him only if he was God. And God would say so, right?

But when we go back to the 27th chapter we see that there was no such claim, rather a different claim, far different than 28:9.

Let us see:

27:11Meanwhile Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied.

If you notice here only thing Jesus is claiming is to be the 'king of Jews'. Jews had many kings, I have never heard of Jews had many Gods?

Here is another verse: 37 "Above his head they placed the written charge against him: THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS." See nomention of God or anything like that.

43He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, 'I am the Son of God.' "

So again, all of these verses from the 27 chapter give a complete opposite picture, when it comes to be worshipping Jesus in the 28 chapter.

Very interesting, something to ponder on Jack?

Hasan

39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"

I have never thought about any difference between chapters 27 and 28 for the following reasons. First of all, the Jews wanted to kill Jesus precisley because he claimed to be God (Allah). To do such a thing was considered blasphemy, a crime punishable by stoning to death according to Mosaic Law. The problem with carying out Mosaic Law was that the Romans would not allow any killing by any people or authority other than the representatives of the government of Rome. That is why the questioning with Pontious pilate was regarding Jesus as a Political figure. That was really all that Rome was concerned with. Rome couldn't have cared less about some people's religion, so Jesus claiming to be a god would only cause the Romans to laugh, but not get Jesus put to death. The Jewish leaders told the Romans that Jesus wanted to be king and that this put the political authority of Rome in jeopardy. But Pontious Pilate did not find in Jesus any reason for Rome to be concerned. So is the topic of chapter 27.

In Chapter 28 of Matthew, we have now Jewish followers of Jesus, and these people recognized value in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and Jesus' claim to be Allah meant something to them. That is why they worshipped him. There really is no discrepancy between these two chapters when you realize their contexts. I hope you understand what I am trying to say to you. Praise be to Allah,

I read all of your quotations regarding Matthew 28:19.Are you aware that every single one of them is written by Protestant Christians?There are over 3000 different Protestant Christian denominations out there in the world today, most of them no more than 100 years old, the oldest being no older than 500 years old, but all of them trying to prove that the Orthodox Catholic Churches are wrong.The issue here is:Only if the Orthodox Catholic Churches are wrong can the Protestant Christian Churches justify their existence.So the branch of Protestantism that agrees with your claim that Matthew 28:19 was inserted later is called Unitarianism, and their main source of evidence comes from a misunderstanding of multiple passages on being baptized into Jesus mentioned in the Holy Bible. Their interpretation of these passages, being misunderstood, pit them against Matthew 28:19 as contradiction.The result is a need to either blame the Catholic Church for some alteration of the Holy Bible, or some other weird explanation.But as always, understood the way that the Apostles meant them, we find that there really is no contradiction, and that history verifies the Holy Bible and the Catholic Church.Read this quote from a Catholic source on the web.

From Catholic Answers Library (www.catholicanswers.com)

The parallelism of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit is not unique to Matthew’s Gospel, but appears elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., 2 Cor. 13:14, Heb. 9:14), as well as in the writings of the earliest Christians, who clearly understood them in the sense that we do today—that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three divine persons who are one divine being (God).

From another Catholic source called the Didache:

"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).

About the Didache, it is a book that was never included in the Holy Bible because it did not fit with the purpose of assembling the books of the New Testament of the Holy Bible. But it does show historically that the Catholic Churches did baptize, “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” during the lifetime of the Apostles.You can see that the Didache was written around 70 AD.Jesus died around 35 AD, and St. Paul and St. Peter died around 52 AD.Most of the Apostles were still alive during 70 AD, and even St. Thomas the Apostle establishing the Catholic Church in India had that community baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.Historically speaking, all those quotes you presented are wrong, I’m sorry to say.

About Baptizing in the name of Jesus verses baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, there is no contradiction or opposing sides for an Orthodox Catholic.Baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is simply the wording used to baptize.But being baptized into the name of Jesus has a whole different meaning all together.To understand it, we must first recognize the imagery of the Christian New Testament.The New Testament speaks of the people of God (a “body” of believers) as a body (group) of believers belonging to Jesus the Christ, or, in the exact wording of the New Testament, the “Body of Christ,” with Jesus as its “head.”So when we see the words:being baptized into the name of Jesus, what we are seeing is a phrase that tells us that when we are baptized, we belong to the body of believers who in turn belong to Jesus Christ:called being baptized INTO Christ.So you see, the two terms are not in contradiction to one another, but are references to two separate aspects of the same thing:one is the wording used when we are baptized, and the other is what happens to us when we are baptized.No contradiction, and no need to speculate or imagine that maybe one of the phrases was added at a later date.

I hope this helps you to understand Catholic teaching better.

Incidentally, I did mention Matthew 28:19 as evidence of the Holy Trinity and what it is because it is concise, but there is plenty more evidence in the Holy Bible of its existence and explaining what it is and what it is not.It certainly is not three separate gods associated with one another, but rather is one God in three separate persons.I know that the Holy Qur’an deals with the first of these two understandings, and in this the Catholic Church agrees with the Holy Qur’an.What I want to know is if the Holy Qur’an deals with the second understanding of the Holy Trinity, which is what the Catholic Church (since the lifetime of Jesus) has taught.Let me know…

I have never thought about any difference between chapters 27 and 28 for the following reasons. First of all, the Jews wanted to kill Jesus precisley because he claimed to be God (Allah). To do such a thing was considered blasphemy, a crime punishable by stoning to death according to Mosaic Law. The problem with carying out Mosaic Law was that the Romans would not allow any killing by any people or authority other than the representatives of the government of Rome. That is why the questioning with Pontious pilate was regarding Jesus as a Political figure. That was really all that Rome was concerned with. Rome couldn't have cared less about some people's religion, so Jesus claiming to be a god would only cause the Romans to laugh, but not get Jesus put to death. The Jewish leaders told the Romans that Jesus wanted to be king and that this put the political authority of Rome in jeopardy. But Pontious Pilate did not find in Jesus any reason for Rome to be concerned. So is the topic of chapter 27.

In Chapter 28 of Matthew, we have now Jewish followers of Jesus, and these people recognized value in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and Jesus' claim to be Allah meant something to them. That is why they worshipped him. There really is no discrepancy between these two chapters when you realize their contexts. I hope you understand what I am trying to say to you. Praise be to Allah,

Salaam Alaekum,

Jack Catholic

Dear Jack,

I do see discrepancy when I see one verse shows that Jesus was worshipping and calling someone God. Then one verse says that Jesus was worshipped, which is only for God. And another verse mentions that Jesus is son of God, when God does not have children, no son or daughter, no mother and no father.

When you just examine that with logic only, and you know those three ideas come from the same book, it becomes very clear that they are certainly not in agreement with each other. At least that's how I see them.

Hasan

39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"

"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).

About the Didache, it is a book that was never included in the Holy Bible because it did not fit with the purpose of assembling the books of the New Testament of the Holy Bible. But it does show historically that the Catholic Churches did baptize, “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” during the lifetime of the Apostles.You can see that the Didache was written around 70 AD.Jesus died around 35 AD, and St. Paul and St. Peter died around 52 AD.Most of the Apostles were still alive during 70 AD, and even St. Thomas the Apostle establishing the Catholic Church in India had that community baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.Historically speaking, all those quotes you presented are wrong, I’m sorry to say.

I am quoting response in the words of brother Abdullah Smith.

The Didache never equates the
“Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”; they are distinguished by three separate dips,
which denote three separate Persons.

But if you have neither, pour out water three
times upon the head, into"the name of Father, and of Son, and of Holy
Spirit." (Didache 7:1)

The “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” are not equal because
the candidate is dipped three times, and not once, it should be once if they are equal, but they are not.

The Father and Holy Spirit are absent from the above texts, so the
Baptismal formula is doubtful and erroneous.The Trinitarian Baptism was not established until the 4th
century.

"The
New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus... which still occurs even in the
second and third centuries" (Schaff-herzogEncyclopaedia of Religious
Knowledge, Volume 1, page 435--1966 edition)

"The
formula used was 'in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ' or some synonymous phrase; there
is no evidence for the use of the triune name." (James Hastings, Encyclopaedia of Religion
and Ethics, Volume 2, page 384 --1958 edition)

The
trinitarian formula and triune immersion were not uniformly
used from the beginning, nor did they always go together." (The Encyclopaedia
Britannica Volume 3, page 365 --1910 edition)

"We
gather from Acts 19:4, that John had merely baptized in the
name of the coming Messiah, without identifying him with Jesus of Nazareth. The apostolic
age supplied this , and the normal use during it seems to have
been 'into Christ identification Jesus',or 'in the name of the
Lord Jesus Christ' or ' of the Lord Jesus Christ.'" (The Encyclopaedia
Britannica, ibid, p. 368)

"Moreover,
there is no mention in the New Testament of any one being baptized into the name of the
Trinity." (James Hastings, A Dictionary of the
Bible, Volume 1, page 241--1906 edition)

"With
the early disciples generally baptism was ‘in the name of Jesus Christ.'"
(Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church,
page 87--1957 edition)

"In the name of
Jesus Christ or of the Lord Jesus. The former expression is used in Acts 2:38 and
10:48. The latter is used in Acts 8:16 and 19:5. See also Acts 22:16... From these
passages, and from Paul's words in the 1st Corinthians 1:13 ('Was Paul crucified for you,
or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?), it is natural to conclude that baptism was
administered in the earliest times 'in the name of Jesus Christ', or that 'of the Lord
Jesus.' This view is confirmed by the fact that the earliest forms of the baptismal
confession appear to have been single--not triple, as was the later creed."(EncyclopaediaBiblica, Volume 1,
page 473--1899 edition)

Just because the Didache applies the formula “Father,
Son and Holy Ghost” does not make them equal.

Since Matthew 28:19 is a forgery, Didache
7:1 must be a forgery as well.

In fact, the Didachemust be rejected because it follows Matthew
28:19.

This Church manual of primitive Christianity, or some section
of it, also bears a longer title. "The Teaching of the Lord, through the Twelve
Apostles, to the Gentiles", which gives us a clue to its nature. It may be a work conceived against the background of
Mt. 28:18-20, [1]

The verse 1 John 5:7 states the “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one”, but
the Didache never dares to mention this.

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father,
the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are
one. (a forgery)

In contrast, the Didache never equates the “Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost” because he was not speaking of trinity.

Regarding Matthew 28:19, the author AkbarallyMeherally states:

Often this particular verse is quoted to support the Nicene
Creed of Trinity. It is argued that Jesus himself had said to baptize all the nations in
the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and thus the doctrine of Trinity
stands endorsed by the Scripture and the Christ.

Of course, the ceremony of Baptism does mention the three
names and in the same sequence and order as the Trinity, but the most important factor is
the status. Where does it say that the three
identities are co-equal? It could very well be a sequence for religious hierarchy in
faith. In the political arena there could be similar sequence of command, for example;
An Emperor, his Minister and his Military Commander. But, the Emperor and his appointee
– the Minister, are not equal. The Minister, by the virtue of being so opted, has a
better status than the rest of the subjects. He can be considered as a chosen citizen and
be so honoured. But, the Emperor would not condone his
subjects if they were to call or glorify the chosen citizen as Emperor. (Understanding the
Bible through Koranic Messages, p. 52)

The Didache does not mention the trinity, it refers to
“Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” in the sequence of religious hierarchy.

Jesus did not return during the lifetime of his people. The widespread anticipation
ended with sheer disappointment.

At first, the Christian community expected an imminent return
of Christ. We are told that during the first century AD, the Christian community looked
forward to the imminent return of Christ in glory and the establishment of the Kingdom.
This hope carried on in the second century. When the second coming failed to occur,
the church organized itself as a permanent institution under the leadership of its
bishops. (Misha’alIbn
Abdullah Al-Kadhi, What
did Jesus Really Say?)

Second
Thessalonians was forged in Paul’s name shortly after his death or during the
late stages of his imprisonment in Rome. Scholars believe it was written to offset the disappointment
and unrest then rising in the Christian community resulting from the unfulfilled
promise of an imminent second coming(2 Thes.
2:1-8).(Eddy,
Patricia G., Who Tampered With the Bible?, p. 184)FACTS ABOUT THE DIDACHE:

Jesus is called thy Servant of God, so the Didache denies
the godhood of Jesus:

We thank Thee, holy Father, for
Thy holy name which You didst cause to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and
faith and immortality, which You modest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Thou,
Master almighty, didst create all things for
Thy name's sake; Yougavest food
and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to Thee; (1)

The Didache was not mentioned until the late 2nd
century, so it must be rejected.

The author is anonymous:

Scholars suggest that the Didache reflects a backward church in a
remote situation, Syria and Palestine being the most favoured
with Egypt also as a possible source. It reflects a situation in which an undisclosed
number of scattered rural Christian communities are given advice on a wide variety of
practical subjects by an unknown author who uses
the pseudonyms of the Twelve Apostles. This may suggest that no Christian leader had
sufficient authority to issue these directives under his own
name.

The original text is lost:

This work became known for the first time in the Constantinople
Manuscripts discovered by Archbishop Bryennios in 1875 and
published 1883. It has been dated at 1056 CE. and is kept in Jerusalem.

It was then possible to go back and see that the Didache in Greek was
actually to be found (in a somewhat revised form) in Book VII of the 4th century Egyptian
Constitutions. In addition there are fragments in Greek (Oxyrhynchus
Papyrus 1782), Coptic, and Ethiopic, and a complete Gregorian version. For the 'Two
Ways' section there is (besides the witness of Barnabas 18-20) a Latin version (the
Doctrina) the 4th century Apostolic Church Order,
and three other manuals of the 4th century or later.

We cannot be sure that the 1056 MS represents the 'original' Didache or even what
'original' means in this context. As with the NT
we are dealing with textual variants, but "with a developing tradition,
and our various witnesses to the Didache merely afford us
glimpses of this tradition at various stages." (online Source)

The Didache never mentions the Gospels, and is totally
silent on Jesus’ life.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.